Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

"If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-09-22 13:36:03
    Gary Johnson now polling at 6% nationally, and is suing the two parties for debate access.

    "If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled."
  • 5 plusses - 52 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-07 18:35:30
    I don't think anyone objects to companies producing things. The objection is to corporatism. We can all have iPhones without corporatism.

    This reminds me of the old socialist "you use our roads" argument. You can have roads with or without goverments.
  • 5 plusses - 45 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-08-23 13:20:46
    I like how this just happens and everyone's like "OK, cool."

    EDIT: only one, unreliable source of this information
  • 2 plusses - 40 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-06-01 15:12:31
    Mitt Romney's economic plan for America is to literally talk about how much Obama sucks.
  • 6 plusses - 38 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-10-16 13:09:29
  • 3 plusses - 35 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-18 16:10:14
    In which the dogs please the pigs by explaining to the sheep that they are dicks.
  • 3 plusses - 34 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-17 14:47:14
    Came across this post by +Edwin Perello via +Steven Sudit.

    While I disagree that property (a loaded word) is the root of all evil, I do think it's time the real libertarians separate themselves from the fakes.

    Business value via Ayn Rand Objectivism is isolationist in nature and severely underestimates the value of those around you. The right to self-interest must inherently, simultaneously and logically accept the right to self-interest of others. This is a simple but apparently true error in a large part of the co-opted liberty movement. Liberty means freedom not for me, or you, or the individual alone but for everyone at once. Self-interest is not a license to abandon the interests of others. It is in fact a requirement to ensure the possibility of all self-interest at once. You cannot have a market by yourself. And the wealth of the market stems from the success of everyone around you, not from you alone.
  • 3 plusses - 32 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2012-01-27 12:08:28
    Here's the problem as I see it: there is a false dichotomy being played out. Elizabeth Warren is neither wrong or right. Government can be great and it can also suck. Privatization can be great and it can also suck. There is a spectrum of good and bad and mediocre examples of all of these. There are simply many different ways for a society to succeed.

    My objection is when members of a society have no choice about which solution they would like to participate in. I don't like the false dichotomy because it perpetuates the notion that there must only be one social contract for everybody.
  • 1 plusses - 28 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-25 16:58:13
    I don't think Ron Paul necessarily "wins" this argument. The post 9/11 world is a place where there are a lot of people who are OK with the Patriot Act and proactive security measures. It just comes down to whether you think they will work or not, because they certainly erode our individual liberty. Are you OK with that tradeoff?

    For me, if someone is crazy and wants to hijack a plane, there's actually nothing you can do about it. You can carry sharp sticks onto planes that function as knives. And you can get complex bomb devices and other fear capturing devices onto planes relatively easy.

    But the flip side is having someone listen to your phone calls and pepper spray you when you protest. One person has the right to use force over or spy on another without due process. Who is the actual terrorist here? And why should anyone trust a bureaucrat to keep them safe?
  • 8 plusses - 28 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-09 16:22:53
    Much more absurd than the tax is what they are doing with the revenue: promoting Christmas trees. Why does the federal government need to be involved in promoting anything? This is so ridiculous.
  • 2 plusses - 25 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-22 10:53:52
    One of the problems in politics today (maybe all time?) is that people immediately knee-jerk one direction or another. But the concepts that Elizabeth Warren promotes are much more rooted in philosophy than typical political jargon. She's making a structured case for her political position.

    This is a good thing: instead of talking about symptoms she's bringing the conversation over to the root systems. We're all better off talking about root causes and rooted decision making.

    The problem with figurehead leaders like Romney, Obama, Bush and Pelosi is that they don't have any underlying principle that they are attempting to accomplish, it's just vague party talking points. There is no foundation. With principled leaders you not only know what you are getting but why you are getting it. And on this foundation we can truly evaluate what works and stop what doesn't work instead of arguing endlessly through spin and biased media jargon.

    I don't agree at all with Warren's ideas, but in a democratic situation (which we are all stuck in currently) I'd much rather engage with someone who has thought through their position than a puppet.

    As always, I'm interested in the dynamics of social thought. If all you want to do is call Warren a bitch I'm not interested.
  • 1 plusses - 25 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-09 16:22:53
    Much more absurd than the tax is what they are doing with the revenue: promoting Christmas trees. Why does the federal government need to be involved in promoting anything? This is so ridiculous.
  • 2 plusses - 25 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-22 10:53:52
    One of the problems in politics today (maybe all time?) is that people immediately knee-jerk one direction or another. But the concepts that Elizabeth Warren promotes are much more rooted in philosophy than typical political jargon. She's making a structured case for her political position.

    This is a good thing: instead of talking about symptoms she's bringing the conversation over to the root systems. We're all better off talking about root causes and rooted decision making.

    The problem with figurehead leaders like Romney, Obama, Bush and Pelosi is that they don't have any underlying principle that they are attempting to accomplish, it's just vague party talking points. There is no foundation. With principled leaders you not only know what you are getting but why you are getting it. And on this foundation we can truly evaluate what works and stop what doesn't work instead of arguing endlessly through spin and biased media jargon.

    I don't agree at all with Warren's ideas, but in a democratic situation (which we are all stuck in currently) I'd much rather engage with someone who has thought through their position than a puppet.

    As always, I'm interested in the dynamics of social thought. If all you want to do is call Warren a bitch I'm not interested.
  • 1 plusses - 25 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-09 16:22:53
    Much more absurd than the tax is what they are doing with the revenue: promoting Christmas trees. Why does the federal government need to be involved in promoting anything? This is so ridiculous.
  • 2 plusses - 25 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-09-22 10:53:52
    One of the problems in politics today (maybe all time?) is that people immediately knee-jerk one direction or another. But the concepts that Elizabeth Warren promotes are much more rooted in philosophy than typical political jargon. She's making a structured case for her political position.

    This is a good thing: instead of talking about symptoms she's bringing the conversation over to the root systems. We're all better off talking about root causes and rooted decision making.

    The problem with figurehead leaders like Romney, Obama, Bush and Pelosi is that they don't have any underlying principle that they are attempting to accomplish, it's just vague party talking points. There is no foundation. With principled leaders you not only know what you are getting but why you are getting it. And on this foundation we can truly evaluate what works and stop what doesn't work instead of arguing endlessly through spin and biased media jargon.

    I don't agree at all with Warren's ideas, but in a democratic situation (which we are all stuck in currently) I'd much rather engage with someone who has thought through their position than a puppet.

    As always, I'm interested in the dynamics of social thought. If all you want to do is call Warren a bitch I'm not interested.
  • 1 plusses - 25 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Johnny Malloy2011-11-09 16:22:53
    Much more absurd than the tax is what they are doing with the revenue: promoting Christmas trees. Why does the federal government need to be involved in promoting anything? This is so ridiculous.
  • 2 plusses - 25 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+